Description
A forum for interaction about Workcover South Australia and the experiences of Injured Workers.
My Links
»
»
»
»
»
|
Workcover discussion place for injured workers. Current
Thanks to all who have visited and contributed to this site over its first year. Do not hesitate to take the time to click on the links above which also support this site.
Please feel free to read or post about your experiences with WorkCover.
|
Posted: 11:34 AM, 15/2/2008 |
Add Comment |
to wcPTSD
| There are many who have written on here, the address has even been published in Adelaide Online. Leon Byner and Bob Francis also take many calls and emails on the WorkCover situation. you could leave a false name. You are only giving your opinion, neither right or wrong, its just an opinion. |
Posted by Crazy (the third one) at 7:38 PM, 15/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Our turn is coming with the new legislation.
About 25,000 teachers have walked off the job across the state today demanding better pay, saying they are the worst paid in Australia.
|
Posted by Demanding a better fair deal at 7:46 PM, 15/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Demanding better pay
I have gone on strike before while I was on Workcover. Did not seem to do much.
Perhaps Workcover did not have much to lose. I mean they all still had their jobs, the case managers still got paid, and the Administrative staff at Workcover and the board obviously do not care. After all the more injured workers on the system the better the business. Its only when they get injured workers who are trouble makers that they give them a hard time.
What sort of a system is it that thrives on keeping injured workers on the system longer??
|
Posted by On strike at 10:56 PM, 15/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Unions
The new legislation wll effect 65,000 workers, This is where the unions without Janet Giles input should plan a demonstration. Ths current system is just out of control at the moment, not answerarable to anyone or anything. If the current system is wrongly abused it will send the state into a minefield.
As you can see, the Government, WorkCover and Business SA are in a no win situation.
The old days people had to walk the streets, today we have emails ans other means. |
Posted by crazy at 10:44 AM, 16/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Do you think I might have a "prasad" case
• Sustained injury at the start of employment in March 2000, First experienced symptoms soon after.
• Continued to work until February 2001.
• Put in claim as symptoms persist.
• 9 months sitting on the claim without determination. As soon as I appointed a lawyer, claim approved (6/5/2002)
• Stated I was overpaid approximate $6000
• Ended up underpaid by $30 000 due to back dating date of initial Doctors consultation.
• Surveillance.
• 3/05/04 questioning treating Specialist on purpose of surgery which lead to a delay.
• Lawyers stating in writing my claim is unreasonable, frivolous and vexatious and abuse of the process
• Donaldson Walsh made an Independent examination was told when I arrived the specialist was not notified. No examination performed.
• Job seeing goals unsuitable to lack of experience
• 1st Work trial checking footy tips for 3 months
• 2nd Work trial had no clearance from my treating specialist
• 3rd Work trial filing of deceased patients in aged care facility (depression)
• 1st Rehabilitation Provider ceased providing my service halfway through work placement at aged case facility without letting employer of facility know.
• 2nd rehabilitation consultant Job placement knew of my accepted depression claim accepted and sought a placement at another aged care facility.
• In 2003 I attempted without success to be retrained, rehabilitation consultant refuses my request
• Another job placement was sought at Autism SA for 8hrs a day, one day a week
• An employer contacting me personally to work in a spice manufacturing shop. Medical reports states that I only work in a clean environment.
• End of 2004, my request was finally accepted
• Misleading reports
• Failing to note treatments in monthly progressive reports
• Certificates not acknowledged
• Dealing with my lawyers without my knowledge – lawyer charging me
• Not sent doctors reports until I requested them
• Always following up reimbursements, which lead to anxiety and always short of income.
• Rejection of surgery after report from treating doctor
• Invalid medical clearance forms to obtain information from treating specialist.
• Received reports from other patients in my FOI
• Rehabilitation plans not sent.
• Described by my rehabilitation consultant I was “Intimidating and threatening” in a closure report which went to all treating specialist and new rehabilitation consultant.
• Third Rehabilitation consultant requesting my treating specialists to change prescribed medical certificate without my knowledge or presence.
• Fourth rehabilitation consultant also tried to change capacity in my presence but was unsuccessful, I was told this was part of the Act for retraining. I asked her to supply me such act, she mentioned it is in the case manager’s manual.
• Work Covers rehabilitation costs to date = $62,800
• WorkCover Layers fees costs to date = $ 52,000
• My Legal fee = $38,900
|
Posted by Is this Fair at 8:08 PM, 16/2/2008 |
Link |
|
continued....
• Job goals stated remuneration were only half of my pre injury income.
• Have had 18 operations as late as last week that is relevant to my workplace injury.
• Overdosed 3 times and needed hospitalisation.
• Rehabilitation consultants not attending meetings.
• Told I would have to find my own employment.
• Would not allow me to travel interstate (due it will effect my rehabilitation), could have disputed but no motivation.
• Rehabilitation plans stated I was cleared for work from a Doctor that doesn’t prescribe my certificates.
• Rehabilitation plans not given to me until half way through the agreement. (part 2) Part 1, I get a copy as they have known to change it if a copy isn’t given.
|
Posted by Is this fair at 8:47 PM, 16/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Above comments
| David Hicks had it easier than you, he wasnt detained as long as you, didnt have continual surgery and free legal fees, he can at least make a mint by selling his story. |
Posted by Terry at 9:27 PM, 16/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Almost identical to mine
Your experience with Workcover is almost identical to mine.
I heard also about a case recently of a buy where Workcover spent $60000 a shot on so called experts who had never consulted an inured worker to give medical opinions.
I say experts because they paid that to two of them for the same claim. Now does it make you wonder how responsibly Workcover is spending employers money?
|
Posted by Injured at work at 12:01 AM, 17/2/2008 |
Link |
|
No corruption-well what is??
Independent weekly Feb 16, 2008.
State parliament will investigate Labor's proposed sale and redevelopment of Glenside hospital.
Liberal deputy leader Vickie Chapman instigated the Upper house committee which will examine the sale.
Forty two per cent of the hospital grounds are to go under the hammer for housing, commercial development and a supermarket. the selection of the supermarket operator, which was done without public tender by Mental Health Minister Gail Gargo , is the subject of a separate inquiry by the Auditor general.
"there is no evidence of corruption," Ms Chapman said. " But to my eyes this deal is putrid. Nothing has been presented which justifies it and I think the government hasn't come clean."
So dear Minister please tell us. A supermarket gets a priority position, no public tender, the deal is all done behind closed doors
What benefits did you Gaigo get from the deal?
This is clearly not accountable government where land deals can be signed up and delivered by Ministers.
And of course Mr Rann we the voters in this state can rely on the ICAC to investigate this matter fully.
If Ms Chapman says there is no evidence of corruption who is going to be the independent party investigating the matter for parliament? |
Posted by I c nothing at 12:14 AM, 17/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Chartered job for the boys
| seeme like we may have some allies in the transport industry now that Carter has come in to fix the transport problem. Wasnt he appointed to do the same with Workcover in 2003? how much has it gone backwards since then? |
Posted by Charter hater at 9:33 AM, 17/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Bruce too many fingers in the pie
Now Bruce Carter is helping out Pat Conlon with his transport mess do not be surprised if you get a letter from Workcover in the near future about your mode of travel. It could read something like this.
Due to the rising cost of transport of injured workers to medical appointments Workcover is now reviewing all reimbursements made for travel to medical and other appointments in private vehicles.
As from 30 February Workcover may not reimburse your private travel expenses.
Workcover will continue to refund your public transport costs to and from medical appointments related to your claim.
|
Posted by Common sense prevails at 10:33 AM, 17/2/2008 |
Link |
|
appointments
Re; Above comment, we will never make any appointments on time if we have to use public transport. Maybe its a scam they can hit us with sec 36 for being late for Appointments, case meetings, job trials etc.........
This has to be the biggest joke |
Posted by 3 strikes at 1:09 PM, 17/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Business SA, "mish-mash of old ideologies".death of a workers
ONE of the state's biggest unions believes reinstating Common Law claims and reducing the number of self-insured companies will help wipe out escalating WorkCover liabilities.
The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union also is raising the idea of introducing the charge of industrial manslaughter for company bosses found negligent after the death of a worker.
AMWU state secretary John Camillo said the union was prompted to make a submission to a current review following recommendations by the WorkCover board to slash workers' benefits. While that option had been rejected by the Government, the union also said it needed to develop options as unfunded liabilities were predicted to hit the $1 billion mark in June - a figure that would not be confirmed until later in the year.
Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright declined to comment on submissions to the review but said the Government did not support the inclusion of industrial manslaughter in Occupational Health and Safety legislation.
Business SA described the submission as a "mish-mash of old ideologies".
|
Posted by Shame at 9:55 PM, 17/2/2008 |
Link |
|
confused
Here is Victorias WorkCovers legislation.
If your claim is ACCEPTED, you are covered
You will receive weekly payments which start at 95% of your average salary for the previous 12 months for any time you have off work. After 13 weeks this will decrease to 75% if you cannot work or 60% if you can work. Your rate will include your average overtime and shift allowance for the first 26 weeks
Weekly payments only last for 104 weeks unless you are totally incapacitated for work
You will be covered for medical and like expenses. These include visits to your doctor, physiotherapy, travelling costs, home help, surgery, pharmaceuticals, aids, rehabilitation services, x-rays, MRIs etc
Your doctor should not charge you directly if you have an accepted claim. The doctor should send the invoice/account to your employer
Give all receipts to your employer. Make sure you keep a copy.
My argument:
If you consider that the unfunded liability In SA is because of totally incapacitated workers, how is this going to solve the problem, as Business SA have stated they want to have a similar legislation to Victorias.
Here again is the section that I refer to.
Weekly payments only last for 104 weeks unless you are totally incapacitated for work.
Therefore there would be no change........Figure?
|
Posted by Dazed at 10:10 PM, 17/2/2008 |
Link |
|
To Dazed
| How many Injured workers currently have been on income maintenance past 2 years? |
Posted by reader at 6:29 AM, 18/2/2008 |
Link |
|
re the Advertiser Feb 18 2008
The blame game. Why are injured workers losing their entitlements because South Australia has the only underperforming Workers Compensation scheme in the Country?
If this was the private sector the razor gang would be cutting costs from the top down not the bottom up.
I wonder how an injured worker and his family is supposed to survive for years on end while they wait for their wages disputes to be resolved quoting "ceasing maintenance until disputes were resolved with any arrears paid to the worker " clearly the injured workers will not have any financial resources to fight back if the board has its way. They will simply join the ranks of the oppressed majority.
By the way has anyone looked at replacing the board and the management? |
Posted by Jeff Thompson at 9:15 AM, 18/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Adelaide Now
| I just found this site through Adelaide Now comments on WorkCover, i can not believe such a site existed. It is however comforting that it is actually a good site without any abuse. Full congratulations to whoever started this (If you were chairperson of the Board, we wouldnt have these problems) |
Posted by Sheryl at 12:52 PM, 18/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Victoria
Dazed, your information is not accurate.
In Victoria, workers are entitled to 130 weeks of weekly payments (not 104) and payments are reduced to 75% (not 60%) after 13 weeks regardless of whether you’re working or not.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 3:36 PM, 18/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Victoria has common law rites.
| I understand in victoria you get common law rites and can sue your employer. When i got injured my boss never wanted me to come to work again and now i am stuck on workcover. Workcover did nothing about it. I want to get off workcover but my case manager steve does nothing about it. I have been on Workcover for five years now and just want to get off so i can get myself some part time work sometime. I spend all my time seeing doctors and going to tribunal. I know the act says two years to get you off and do a review but they never do it properly |
Posted by D.Price at 5:12 PM, 18/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Janet Giles Quits the board
Congratulations for quitting the board Ms Giles.
Its such a pity that other members of the board do not have the same understanding of the actual role and objects of the board.
For those who may be unsure they are as follows from the Workcover corporation act.
WORKCOVER CORPORATION ACT 1994 - SECT 12
12—Primary objects
The Corporation's primary objects are—
(a) to reduce, as far as practicable, the
incidence and the severity of work-related injuries;
and
(b) to ensure, as far as practicable, the prompt and
effective rehabilitation of workers who suffer
work-related injuries; and
(c) to provide fair compensation for work-related
injuries; and
(d) to keep employers' costs to the minimum that
is consistent with the attainment of the objects
mentioned above.
PS. Bruce if you have any trouble understanding what fair compensation means. It is what is fair to injured workers and their families after they are injured at work through no fault of their own. It does not have anything to do with fair compensation for board members for failing to rehabilitate injured workers or fair compensation for denying them their rights, nor does it have anything to do with fair compensation for Workcover employees who are pressured into prosecuting injured workers instead of rehabilitating them back into the workforce. |
Posted by Jeff Thompson at 6:37 PM, 18/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Janet Giles quits board to defend injured workers
Janet Giles quits board to defend injured workers
Article from: The Advertiser
JOANNA VAUGHAN, POLITICAL REPORTER
February 18, 2008 12:56pm
SOUTH Australian Unions secretary Janet Giles has quit the WorkCover board so she can fight a planned compensation cut to injured workers.
The Advertiser reported today that WorkCover payouts to injured workers are about to be cut by the Rann Government, more than a year after the controversial move was recommended by the group's board.
A report into WorkCover by financial expert Alan Clayton is before Cabinet and about to be released, with business and economic experts saying cutting benefits is the only way to reduce WorkCover's rapidly growing liabilities.
Ms Giles who has been a member of the WorkCover board for more than five years, said she could not defend workers rights if she was still on the board.
She made the decision after reading the story titled ``WorkCover Compo Cuts'' in The Advertiser this morning.
``I'm resigning from the board because it's my job to defend workers - and I cannot do this with the restrictions placed on board members,'' she said.
``I also will not be gagged from scrutinising the motives of the business lobby, which seeks to cut their levy rates at injures workers' expenses.
The challenge that some employers continue to avoid is to ensure workplaces are safe and assist in the safe return to work of their injured workers.''
If the planned cut goes ahead, unions will publicly campaign to ensure working people in SA were protected when they are injured, but also return to work as soon as possible.
Her resignation is effective immediately. |
Posted by Anonymous at 7:18 PM, 18/2/2008 |
Link |
|
When enough is enough
WorkCover and EML seem to enjoy screwing with wounded peoples lives.
Seems it happened in the states too, go to you tube and type in "Killdozer" for some great ideas on how to go out with a bang!! |
Posted by KillDozer at 9:10 PM, 18/2/2008 |
Link |
|
When enough is enough
| With Rann and Wright softening up the media for their assault on workers rights, it can't be too long before a Marv Heemayer lodges an appeal against their treatment? |
Posted by Marv Heemayer at 9:17 PM, 18/2/2008 |
Link |
|
My support for Janet Giles
I wholly support Janet's position to resign from the board. Obviously she recognised that the spirit of the act is not being complied with by the Board members and decided enough was enough. She has taken her stand.
I saw media Mike giving dribbling and drooling( yet again) on the News last night. I am surprised he has not read the review yet or even been briefed on it. Surely as premier he would need to know what is being done to fix the potential $billion dollar liability that is looming with Workcover.
Perhaps he was misleading the public although he may put all his faith in the missing in action Minister Wright and Bruce. That would give you some idea of how the state is really being managed (not).
|
Posted by R. Glenn at 9:33 AM, 19/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Untitled Comment
| why have they removed all the reader comments about WorkCover from the AdelaideNow site?? |
Posted by Anonymous at 12:53 PM, 19/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Giles quits to help workers
Giles quits to help workers
Article from: The Advertiser
JOANNA VAUGHAN, POLITICAL REPORTER
February 18, 2008 12:56pm
SOUTH Australian Unions secretary Janet Giles has quit the WorkCover board so she can fight a planned compensation cut to injured workers.
The Advertiser reported today that WorkCover payouts to injured workers are about to be cut by the Rann Government, more than a year after the controversial move was recommended by the group's board.
A report into WorkCover by financial expert Alan Clayton is before Cabinet and about to be released, with business and economic experts saying cutting benefits is the only way to reduce WorkCover's rapidly growing liabilities.
Ms Giles who has been a member of the WorkCover board for more than five years, said she could not defend workers rights if she was still on the board.
She made the decision after reading the story titled ``WorkCover Compo Cuts'' in The Advertiser this morning.
``I'm resigning from the board because it's my job to defend workers - and I cannot do this with the restrictions placed on board members,'' she said.
``I also will not be gagged from scrutinising the motives of the business lobby, which seeks to cut their levy rates at injures workers' expenses.
The challenge that some employers continue to avoid is to ensure workplaces are safe and assist in the safe return to work of their injured workers.''
If the planned cut goes ahead, unions will publicly campaign to ensure working people in SA were protected when they are injured, but also return to work as soon as possible.
Her resignation is effective immediately.
Comments
Congratualtions to Janet Giles for stepping out of the circle of greed constantly demonstrated by the employer,and acknowledging that injured workers are not getting true value of care and financial support after they have been injured at work. There are many workers who are injured seriously and will never work again and yes there are those workers who attempt to "rort" the system thus giving genuine receivers of compensation a bad image. It is not this however that needs to be addessed but the imbalance of the system that is unfair and this is what Janet Giles is demonstrating about. Firstly a worker seriously injured not only has the pain and suffering to go through but also the massive loss of wages. After 2 years their salary is cut by 20% gross and although the system allows the worker to be able to claim for all matters pertaining to their injury, ie. medicines, travel, special needs including frames walking sticks etc, it is the little matters that get overlooked such as the extra panadol, or the one of massage to relieve the pain that envelopes consistently a body that is slowly being broken by the pain and the legal wrangle. The worker has to suffer that much indignity when attempting to make a claim that a good majority do not claim any more purely because it is made too difficult to do so. Next the loss of superannuation. The worker no longer receives any benefit here and like other workers who will retire with healthy packages the injured worker will retire with an unhealthy bank balance and an unhealthy body.Today workers are encouraged to contribute to their futures by investing in super plans well Mr Rann tell the permantely injured worker who cannot play with their grandchildren cannot feed themselves nor bathe or dress themselves how they are going to save for their future-what future Mr Rann? come out of your ivory tower stop spruiking about how the injured workers are ruining the states economy by an organisation that cannot run their business and instead of cutting the injured workers salary even more cut the salary of the Workcover Corporation "fatcats" and yours as well by 20% and cancel your superannuation and see how well the states economy will improve and how not well you will llive. Well done Janet Giles for standing up and being counted for an issue that so many are prepared to just sweep under the carpet, blame the injured workers when in the first place it was not their fault they are in the position they are.Yes Mr Rann it will do some of your overweight ministers to take a 20% paycut not just freeze what they have now and say what a good job the government is doing in controlling the states economy and how responsible government is for acting in this manner - who are you trying to fool certainly not the true injured workers who from the day they were rushed into hospital with a life threatening injury and has suffered financially and medically ever since and now you want to make them bleed more- Mr Rann there is no more blood left but there is plenty of spine left just ask Janet Giles.
Posted by: Andrew of Adelaide 1:36am February 19, 2008
Comment 15 of 15
Well the ALP (Alternative Liberal Party) is at it again, this time its the injured workers turn. Olsen, Brown and Co would have been proud of this assault on the worker. How quickly the ALP forget where they come from! On the other hand Janet Giles you do yourself proud, give these so called true believers hell!
Posted by: BRUCE HULL of Warradale 7:20pm February 18, 2008
Comment 14 of 15
AT LAST ..SOMEONE ON THE INJURED WORKERS SIDE. NOBODY ELSE SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANT TO WORK BUT ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY A PREVIOUS EMPLOYERS NEGLICENCE AND LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF "RETURN TO WORK, SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT & JOB ROTATION"
Posted by: DETERMINED DISCRIMINEE of 6:02pm February 18, 2008
Comment 13 of 15
Good onya Janet, if you cannot abide by the politically-motivated rules governing Wokrcover, go out and help the poor buggers who are injured, and have no income. The Rann - led Labour Party here in South Oz is getting arrogant, and becoming ignorant to real peoples needs - as did Howards liberals... is it timefor a change of Leadership of the Labour Party? (Well, not for Hamilton-Smith, he may get votes in the next election)
Posted by: Allan Kempster of Clearview 5:29pm February 18, 2008
Comment 12 of 15
confusion on who is running workcover and its board? the plan by the WorkCover board to cut benefits to workers is the same as that put forward by Bussiness SA whose chairman is also on the workcover board. It would be fair to dsay that as Peter Vaughan is on both Bussiness SA and the workcover board that he should also resign from the WorkCover board as it is clearly a conflict of interests for him to be in both positions at the expense of the injured workers. The WorkCover board is made up of Bruce Carter who is a insolvency accountant and as the latest news has it the golden hair boy of the Rann Govt who have him on various boards which must place him also in a conflict of interest position. But its interesting that as WorkCover can not met the Australian insurance guidelines on the operations of a insurance firm and would ahve been insolvent by that organisation that Bruce Carter whom you would expect be an expert in this field should have made the board and the operation of WorkCover bankrupt and placed in a plan of recovery . However Bruce Carter has taken the unfunded liability from 23 million to 884 million in 5 years (not bad for a chairman of the board the govt has made its golden hair boy) It about time the management be turned over to run the Act as it was intended and that means helping the iinjured and not the lawyers, surveillence firms, medical providers, casemanagers, WorkSafe SA and courts that have been placed to hinder the clear cheap operation of the Act anyone especially blind freddy can see that one injured claim from a workers makes income for over 50 people instead of assisting one injuried all the others are paid to hinder, i would like to see how much one paid to an injured worker ratio to how much it costs to pay all the others is. i bet that one dollar to an in jured worker equals 500 dollars to all the others its time the high end of town own up to the fact they have held a gun to the head of the public and that they are incompendent at there jobs and its time they quit to make way for those who can make it work instead of removing the injured workers benefits and conditions.
Posted by: mark moore-mcquillan of 4:46pm February 18, 2008
Comment 11 of 15
This is a real case of kicking people while they are down. Good on you Janet for making a stand, its a pity the rest will not join you. As for those who get hurt at work;make sure that you take ALL your entitled to. As for you Mr Rann, I hope that you never need work cover.
Posted by: Paul of Northern Suburbs 4:04pm February 18, 2008
Comment 10 of 15
As a state goverment worker who has injured himself whilst carrying out is normal work duties in a place that is well know for work injuries beacause of lack of funds towards buying equipment or setting up safe systems of work,(i must admit they are trying to fix that now after safework audits).You ar now trying to kick me in the cuts why i am down because of your inattention to look at workers safety until somethink happens.i am back to my normal pre-injury hours but i will not be going back to my pre-injury employment which i have been doing for many years.it not only affects my work which is all that you are worried about but what i am required to do at home i am sure you wont come over and help
Posted by: ANTHONY BARNETT of o,sullivan beach 2:55pm February 18, 2008
Comment 9 of 15
It would be great if she could now resign as the South Australian Unions secretary.
Posted by: Peter MM of Seaford 2:46pm February 18, 2008
Comment 8 of 15
Well done Janet. Its a pity none of the other ostriches take your lead. They are too busy burying their heads in the sand and making out nothing is wrong with the way Workcover is being managed.
Posted by: Jeff Thompson of Adelaide 2:39pm February 18, 2008
Comment 7 of 15
Instead of cutting injured workers pay-outs, cut the number of board members and make the work based on competency, that would save money. If you have a civil claim for damages, your pay-out isn't reduced because other party is short of funds. Instead of calling him media Mike, why don't we call him Mickey Mouse? because this is surely the deranged workings of a cartoon character's mind?
Posted by: Robert Smissen of Country SA 2:23pm February 18, 2008
Comment 6 of 15
Congratulations to Janet Giles quiting the workcover board. As many workers thought from the start. The out of control unfunded liability was always going to be fixed by hurting the very people it was designed to help. Those people are the injured workers of South Australia. I am yet to see any worker feeling they are financially better off staying on workcover.
Posted by: Ernest McKenna of Sheidow Park 2:11pm February 18, 2008
Comment 5 of 15
It's good to see Janet acting on the integrity of her position as a representative of South Australian workers. Regrettably, the ones who should be resigning from the WorkCover Board, but who won't, are those with the vested interests in aspects of the industry, together with the BusinessSA representative whose only mission seems to be to sink the compo raft that helps to keep injured workers afloat during soul-destroying times that they are out of work and at the mercy of the system. And why do we still not have an Independent Commission Against Corruption to investigate the stench that hangs over WorkCover's $1.5 billion in foreign investments. I'd like to know where that card sits in the house of cards that is the international financial crisis.
Posted by: mike-servethepeople of adelaide 2:05pm February 18, 2008
Comment 4 of 15
What about wee Jimmy Watson also resigning from the WorkCover Board on the ground that he used to be an AMWU official who was allegedly supporting workers rights.
Posted by: kaz kowalski of 1:22pm February 18, 2008
Comment 3 of 15
She's been a member of the board for five years? She is responsible for the situation at hand of a constant blowout in liabilities and all the organisational ills!
Posted by: Ben of Adelaide 1:09pm February 18, 2008
Comment 2 of 15
Perhaps, instead of punishing the victims, the government should be looking at the real reasons for any Workcover cost blowouts, incompetence in Case Manahement and general administration, outsourcing disasters, conflicts of interest by board members, and any number of individual case disasters. Of course basing any decisions on a nebulous figure of "unfunded liability is a bit like deciding if someone is solvent by determining if they can pay their mortgage after their income is cut to zero." Unfunded liability is at best a guess, based on no further income coming into the system, and at worst, a political fantasy figure. Unfunded liability can be dramatically improved by competent staff and management systems, and rewards for return to work.
Posted by: Atli Karl Von Bansch of Aldgate 1:00pm February 18, 2008
Comment 1 of 15
|
Posted by Anonymous at 8:12 AM, 20/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Untitled Comment
| and the ones from the day before? There were heaps of those about the original story. |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:22 AM, 20/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Comments from the Advertiser re compo cuts.
Comments
Heres a thought from left field re this crap attack on the injured.. Employers where over represented on this board and seems to be the only board members who got there thoughts considered...I have a strange feeling here this not just about reeling in WC costs..Its to do with giving in one hand taking away from the other..Like employers have it seems to now accept maternity leave with some sort of payment for this..so to recoop these now NEW costs to companies taking some costs away from there injured is the taking away with the othjer hand???
Posted by: Stiffy of Adelaide 10:49am today
Comment 78 of 78
don't rort it so that it can offer competitive premiums to employers while maintaining legislated levels of care and entitlements for injured workers........Says Ben,,, Well Ben Self insured employers breach maintaining legislated levels already and have been for years what would make this any different under your proposal m8? other than increasing the volume of breaches to now be by all...
Posted by: Gill of Adelaide 10:34am today
Comment 77 of 78
I think you should look more at the employers, if they didnt give us extra work to do in less time than we did before, then you wouldnt have all these people on work cover and i would prefer to work, than be in pain for the rest of my life and i agree with the comment above..THERE IS NO BENEFIT BEING INJURED and it effects you physicologcal as well.
Posted by: work cover victim of 11:30pm February 18, 2008
Comment 76 of 78
You get a strong feeling that it's seen as something of a lucrative gravy train. Posted by: Sayer of Adelaide Very much a gravy train for the doctors, specialists and lawyers
Posted by: Mike of Mid North SA 10:18pm February 18, 2008
Comment 75 of 78
What a load of rubbish ! For 12 months I have been on Work Cover Payments, and at this stage it looks like I will never be able to return to work. During this time, not once has the current agent for Work Cover, Employers Mutual ever had me evaluated for any treatment to try to get me back to work, even for light duties. In this time, I have made all my own arrangements for remedial therapy in an attempt to improve my condition and also to try to improve my quality of life. For the past 12 months my case has been handed to 3 different Case Managers, who obviously never get a chance to get to know their clients needs or requirements before they are either moved along to a different section or leave the industry completely. Maybe just maybe if this area were to be looked into more carefully it would be noted that the INJURED WORKER should not be victimised even more by a cut in payments, but instead look into the area where the problems are manifesting - within the ranks of those who are employed to HELP the injured workers. Work Cover recipients already lose out on their Employer Superannuation contributions, but also have their payments reduced after a certain amount of time. Taking more away from an injured worker is only a very short term solution. The Work Cover act clearly states that NO WORKER SHALL BE DISADVANTAGED, gee Mr Rann I think what you are proposing will certainly go against all that Work Cover originally stood for.
Posted by: Caroline Williams of Sheidow Park 9:33pm February 18, 2008
Comment 74 of 78
I totally echo the comments of Workcover Victim of 10:36am today. Saves me writing the exactly the same thing. I get injured by an employer that couldnt really care less and who received no penalty, get screwed over and over again through a court system by HIH and end up on a disability pension with a 20K payout instead of the 35 years on at atleast 70k per year i earned as a crane driver. Now they are going to cut it further? Make the employer or guilty party pay the full cost. Let us go back to taking private action in court. My employer should have put a lump sum into a trust an i should be existing off the interest, not being supported by the rest of the taxpayers lucky enough not to get injured in this mean and corrupt system.
Posted by: Marc of Adelaide 8:38pm February 18, 2008
Comment 73 of 78
Since workcover is only relevant when one gets injured, it is about time we stop being reactive (employees/employers) and introduce, economically sound and effective prevention programs. You will never stop all injuries, and you wont stop people being people. But you will signifiacnlty reduce injury rates and the severity if workers are consulted and involved in the prevention process, rather than some boffin in an office telling workers how to perform. Employers (and this isespecially so with the Govt) need to realise that prevention is an an investment, and if done well, will easily see a significant return on their investment, via smaller premiums, less injuries, sick days, improved retention and so on.
Posted by: cut workcover to become Co2 neutral!! of 5:53pm February 18, 2008
Comment 72 of 78
No worker goes to work expecting to get injured just as no business can afford to neglect OH&S issues. Why is it that self insured big companies in SA can pay the same compo but not have the huge unfunded liability or atrocious case management that is SA work Cover. Janet Giles has at last recognised her conflict of interest, when will Peter Vaughan from Business SA step aside? The work cover board recommendations were ignored over 12 months ago, now we have another report delayed. The answer is not in cutting workers entitlements or increasing premiums. it is in the case management and organisational structure. Every day of delay is another day of increasing liability blowout - two billion here we come!
Posted by: No Joke of Somerton Park 5:15pm February 18, 2008
Comment 71 of 78
Will our business still have to pay 8.3% levy even though we never made a claim? Posted by: Karen of Adelaide .............................Yes Karen and all whilst companys that are exempt and therefore do not! pay any levie at all get medicare support through script concessions of there injured employee.i suggest levi paying employers need to stop paying levies as there appeares to be no need, ask the cooperates.
Posted by: Daz of Adelaide 3:04pm February 18, 2008
Comment 70 of 78
Merilyn Williams of S.A. ..............YES!! so bloody true... Im trying to read through all these as very close to my situation, the general theme im picking up on is the Injured worker getting shafted and blamed again along with the doctors ...For crying out loud people who are being critical here of the injured workers views you most sprout off about one or 2 cases you hear 3rd hand and tarnish everyone how stupid(now said most not all) The volume of difficulties many injured have been objected to is proof enough this is not there! doing yet the injured being targeted. Just about my entire Life from employment to anything social has been taken away,Its not just about earnings to may of the injured... my employer has spent more to justify there officially!! proven wrong doing's than it would have cost to redeem my employment this also not just about money to them right now it¿s simply about controlling!! Not being responsible for them.
Posted by: Spider of York Penisular 2:24pm February 18, 2008
Comment 69 of 78
Im a injured worker and Heidi sorry your off the mark a bit there don¿t put blame on the doctors most do a great job with consultations involving work related injuries taking more than the normal 10/15min' basic consultation hence the higher fees some times..However there is a GREAT expense to tax payers! via Injured workers employed by a Self Insured Exempt Work Cover Employer.. Medication cost is being subsided by Medicare who is picking up the cost for the gap between any PBS charges for medication instead the EXEMPT WC Employer paying full private cost..So here we have mostly Big Business who pays NOT ONE CENT!! Into public work cover being supported by the tax payers. So politician here is a chance to save money stop this routing of EXEMPT employers not paying there way and at the expense of our tax dollars not to mention the INSULT to MANY! Smaller Employers who DO PAY there way with WC Levies...how would they feel knowing they pay a levee Exempt employers don¿t?.... And do I miss something here about the blow out in administration costs? So what we have Admin' fail again and again so its now back to making the Injured employee take the blame..Mr Michael Wright why did you not release this report prior to the election? And will you try to have it retrospective? My WC Exempt employer has been ALLOWED to get away with stalling everything!... In my case and many others, The Employers hopes are riding on this report being there great escape from responsibilities¿ If this to be the case don¿t for a moment believe most long termed injured workers who have suffered and stuck it out for years being screwed by these rouge exempt employers will just roll over as myself and others will continue not just for ourselves but also those who have conceded to these mongrel rouge Employers .. Many have families to take care of they understand there responsibilities many have been wronged and not just the injured worker suffers in these cases..We hope this report or new legislation acknowledges decent penalties to Exempt employers who do breach there obligation there mutuality in adhering to WC regulations etc¿From my experience its seems rather knowledgeable that exempt employers are a rule to there own with NO Reasonable deterring penalties for breaches.. I Challenge Mr. Wright to respond to injured workers immediate concerns, a response that is deserved after all don¿t you think they are part of the so-called problem?.. In my opinion Work Cover itself again is NOT the problem it¿s of course the typical bureaucracy but geez! the BS that self insured Exempt Big Business gets away with being responsible for an injured worker such as things like I have said about passing on there injured workers medication expense to the tax payer and now it seems will even be able to do more to tax payers by eventually DUMPING! ALL there responsibilities via new legislation...
Posted by: Spider of York Penisular 1:58pm February 18, 2008
Comment 68 of 78
Look after the Workers until they get hurt then screw them Rann, next he will suggest take all injured workers out the back and shoot them like injured horses are treated. Yes there are some bludgers, but why should the poor bugga that has been hurt at work get a raw deal. I'm not on work cover and never have been and hope never to be, but would want a fair go if I was. Rann you are a Labor man and Labor was for the working class, no longer it seems
Posted by: Bob the Builder of Adelaide 1:58pm February 18, 2008
Comment 67 of 78
Obviously my comment about colusion hit a nerve eh?.. LOL
Posted by: bobdown of in front of my puter 1:38pm February 18, 2008
Comment 66 of 78
Easy way to fix it - expose WorkCover to competition. Employers must have worker injury insurance, but there should be a choice of insurers. Similar to this, in Queensland you have a choice of insurers to use for CTP on your vehicle. WorkCover will be forced to improve its performance then to make sure that doctors, consultants, etc. don't rort it so that it can offer competitive premiums to employers while maintaining legislated levels of care and entitlements for injured workers.
Posted by: Ben of Adelaide 12:47pm February 18, 2008
Comment 65 of 78
Administrators should be charged with Fraud/Corruption if they are to blame for this. Too many pigs in the trough of money to be had for the administrators, by business paying the required levy. In all this money is not being used correctly to assist the employee, the Administration are trying to save money so they can have further bonuses and payrises. Most Rehab sections provided by the employers are also non productive making the worker continually jump through hoops, having hidden agendas and tell lies at official conferences. The money wasted by these organisations/Employers to disprove the workers claim but most times in the end backfire for the employer. Of course the employer wants to cut liability, they are in this at all cost including taking the soul of the worker in the process, do they care, I think not, as long as their pockets are lined with gold, to hell with everyone else. To the persons who have made comments that people on work cover are bludgers, be very careful at work, make sure nothing happens to YOU.
Posted by: Tony Crowley of Adelaide 12:23pm February 18, 2008
Comment 64 of 78
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE... having been in the "system" for a while now, you get to see the process first hand. every thing is outsoursed to a rehab provider at huge costs per year. Doctors, physios,specialists all take advantage of the system and double their going rates. you get handballed from person to person, report after report after report. it is a joke. if you want to renter the workforce the process stops you, they have to evaluate and re-evaluate to make sure you wont aggrivate or reinjure yourself, you become a lepper..probabely unemployable because of red tape and "if buts and maybes" . Dont cut the entitlements for the injured workers, it does not help with the indignitie of being stuck on the notsomerrygoround. change the process that takes place and give us a fair go it is not our fault.
Posted by: MS of componotsomerrygoround 12:01pm February 18, 2008
Comment 63 of 78
As a large employer it is correct that there would only be a 2-3% of mild claims that sneak through the system as exaggeration. The fear most employers will have if the new legislation comes in is long drawn out common law cases, where there is no rehabilitation, no case managers as there would be no wages paid. Common law would then allow spouses to claim for stress. So we would have to pay two levies, a WorkCover and an Insurance premium.
Posted by: Jason Homa of Beverley 11:58am February 18, 2008
Comment 62 of 78
Never fear workers St Kevin and his disciple Media Mike will save us. The labor party is all for "working familys" so they tell us or doesn't that apply if you get hurt at work and cannot work?
Posted by: grumpy of north of gepps cross 11:58am February 18, 2008
Comment 61 of 78
The huge unfunded liability is a result of poor legislation, the fact it is a "no fault" system, a lack of funding to Safework SA to investigate negligence on the part of both employer and employee, a medical system that is pushed to it's limits thus seeing Workcover patients as cash cows....I could go on and on. Once again it is the "victim" in this crime that will be most punished. I had worked constantly for 26 years before I was injured at work 4 years ago. I suffered a severe back injury which is still unresolved. I have been told surgery "may" help yet no surgeon want's to touch it due to the risk involved. 4 months into the injury I suffered a "psychological" breakdown which required me to be hospitalized in a psychiatric ward. I work in a very high tech field of knowledge and as such was earning an excellent income. My future was very good and as my work history had shown, my income would continue to grow. So now I am left "holding the baby". Being told I like many others are the cause of this massive problem. I don't think so. My life has been turned upside down, inside out, chewed up and spat out. Mr Rann and your fellow "employee's of the people", I think you have forgotten the roots of the Labor party and who it represents. I simply hope no one ever kicks your feet from under you and you find yourselves in the same situation as me.
Posted by: About to be shafted of 11:53am February 18, 2008
Comment 60 of 78
thomas the tank - "prevention is the key u morons!" 'Tis indeed a great shame someone didn't give your mother that advice before it was too late!
Posted by: A small brown dog of dubious pedigree 11:27am February 18, 2008
Comment 59 of 78
Please be advised that the next Public Forum in regard to WorkCover will be held on the 8th March at the Enfield Community Centre starting at 9.30am through to 1pm. Work Injured Resource Connection intends to invite Minister Wright & Treasurer Foley to explain why they have not just mislead Parliament over the last 6 years in regard to the mess that WorkCover is in, but they have mislead every South Australian. Information in regard to the Forum can be obtained at wirc@bold.net.au Many questions need to be asked and answered, Minister Wright needs to face all of us at the Forum instead of seeking the protection of Parliament House. If you are wondering why Treasurer Foley needs to also attend, the answer is simple, WorkCover Corporation is a Public Corporation, and as such Treasurer Foley is responsible for its operation just as much as Minister Wright is. Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson Work Injured Resource Connection
Posted by: Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson of 11:18am February 18, 2008
Comment 58 of 78
I was injured at wor a couple of years ago,(broken ribs), and within a week I had the Workcover rehabilitation officer on my doorstep trying to force me back to work, when I could hardly stand up or even breathe. Because I was a contractor at the time, the hire company that I was working for were more worried about their reputation with the employer than my health and welfare. Through the colusion of both employers and Worcover and their doctor, I was forced back to work way to early and the result was that I ended up with a punctured lung. In the ensuing court case I was awarded damages. Knobs!
Posted by: bobdown of in front of my puter 11:16am February 18, 2008
Comment 57 of 78
INQUIRY INTO THE WORKCOVER CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA TERMS OF REFERENCE (adopted 1 November 2007) 1. That pursuant to section 16(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Statutory Authorities Review Committee inquire into and report on the WorkCover Corporation of South Australia (WorkCover), having regard to the extraordinary blow-out in the unfunded liability of WorkCover from $86 million in 2002 to $843 million in 2007, the failure of the Government to properly and adequately monitor and manage the unfunded liability of WorkCover, and the claim by WorkCover in January 2006 that the sole claims manager would achieve necessary liability reduction to deliver a fully funded scheme by 2012-13, with particular regard to¿- (a) the deteriorating financial position of WorkCover; (b) the effectiveness of outsourcing the claims management to a sole claims manager; (c) the tender process and the probity of that process, leading to the appointment of the sole claims manager; (d) the exposure of WorkCover to the sub-prime financial market; (e) the 2007 actuarial report submitted to the WorkCover Board in September 2007; and (f) any other matters.
Posted by: Anthony redmond of Henley Beach 10:59am February 18, 2008
Comment 56 of 78
I have been on workcover for about 4 years now after a forklift accident at work. My employer applied to have my employment terninated after 12 months, becuse he did not have any suitable alternate work to offer me. Workcover allowed this, and since then I have applied for (and been turned down for) hundreds of jobs. I have had about 8 different case managers and 3 rehab companies (with about 8 different rehab consultants). I have since been told that only about 5% of workers on workcover for more than 3 years return to work. The last thing I could handle now is for workcover to cut my payments (which is 80% of the award rate for the position I held). I am mentally spent. It is bad enough living with stigma of being on workcover, let alone having to worry about whether my payments will be reduced or stopped. I believe workcover should redeem long term recipients fairly, so that money goes to workers rather than continuing paying Doctors, specialists, rehab companies, solicitors and the like.
Posted by: David of Burton 10:51am February 18, 2008
Comment 55 of 78
Having been injured at work a number of years ago and been the recipient of the so called generous Workcover payments I can tell you I am currently approaching $400,000 worse of. I was told by my then employer that they would "Look after me" so I didn't take legal action that was then available. As soon as the act was changed I was whisked off the Workcover system with a pittance and placed on Government benifits. So, until I found suitable work that would not exacerbate my injury, the long suffering taxpayers of Australia were forced to pay for the dereliction of duty my employer was responsible for. Workcover was supposed to be a no fault scheme that replaced the costly litigation of the previous mode of addressing work place injury. Instead a self serving bueacracy has grown up feeding on the plight of the injured workers. Stop workplace accidents and fraudelent claims and improve the effeciency of the system and there would be no need to reduce the compensation payments (THEY ARE NOT BENEFIT PAYMENTS! THERE IS NO BENEFIT IN BEING INJURED)
Posted by: Workcover Victim of 10:36am February 18, 2008
Comment 54 of 78
Some of the blame for huge costs HAS to fall back on the doctors - who as soon as you say "its a workcover claim" their fees almost double - for NO EXTRA consultation!!
Posted by: Heidi of adelaide 10:31am February 18, 2008
Comment 53 of 78
To Whatever of SA, you can find the figures on the WorkCover website http://www.blognow.com.au/workcover/ And it shows the pattern on how the and when the WorkCover Board and the Industrial Minister created this mess. A mess which indicates there is a debt but also an overseas investment portfolio of $1.5 Billion. Employers should also note they have also been mis-lead and should unite with workers to identify these problems and its origins.
Posted by: Peter Hanna of Panorama 10:27am February 18, 2008
Comment 52 of 78
If people think this is workers v employers, then they are complete fools and playing the game the Board wants played out... Wake Up! Small businesses are getting screwed and so are injured workers - to equal measure. If you are an employer whose been shafted, it's too easy to blame the worker even if they have been dishonest. If you are a worker who's been scuttled it's easy to beleive the employer that has been in league with WorkCover is the evil-doer.... The truth opponents of WorkCover want it sunk and sunk fast. Is not Business SA's Board rep working hard to see its collapse? If not, it's a bloody terrible and unfortunate accident - NOT!... Enough other Board members have significant fiscal interests in staying on the gravy train. The only difference is how many small businesses are so expendable as to justify the means the Board is using? The Union Reps have remained obligingly quiet... no so much as a peep from them.... WHY? Yep, GRAVY TRAIN! Without WorkCover's $ how many would really survive? If wars keep economies going, this train is about to go over a cliff very soon... Now what would happen if employers and injured workers joined forces???? Wouldn't that see some serious heads roll?
Posted by: Matthew G of 10:20am February 18, 2008
Comment 51 of 78
its about time the employers who do not provide safe and reasonable workplaces take on the cost of the injured workers for life then we may see them change their poor attitude to workplace health and safety.
Posted by: graham hall of s.a 10:18am February 18, 2008
Comment 50 of 78
It sucks to be injured at work and go through rehabilitation. I know because my wife has gone through the process. However, there is no denying that SA has the most generous schemes in Australia and most of the liability problems with our Workcover scheme are about long term income maintenance, not rehab costs. Why does SA need a substantially more income maintenance than other States. Queensland has the least generous schemes of all Australia and it doesn't seem to be a big issue for employees up there. Or is SA just a socialist paradise?
Posted by: Andrew of Adelaide 10:10am February 18, 2008
Comment 49 of 78
If work cover didnt waste so much money and time doing nothing it wouldnt of reached this state.I have been on work cover for over a year.When I tried to look for work I was told I could by the job network groups no because I was on compensation.When I was cleared for duty work cover gave me a rehab officer,but because I had not been release from work they couldnt find me a job.that took over 14 months.When i asked if I could do a retraining course the said it would cost to much ($600) dollars at the time.(I would of gladly taken a cut in my payout if they would of paid it).I was told it wouldnt get cleared by workcover.Instead they sent me to a psychologist to see what i was capable of doing.(he cost over $800) this meeting lasted just over an hour.So before you people start complaining about the bludgers out there make sure its not them bludging, but because the red tape and crap they have to go through.Work cover are making bludgers because of their lack of action.
Posted by: gezza of 10:10am February 18, 2008
Comment 48 of 78
Having in the past been on the work cover system I had found it the most degrading event, it is the continual visits to medical professionals, and therapists, and the re-habilitation officers that take the bulk of the money.....prevention though is the best saving.
Posted by: Shirley of Port Adelaide 10:09am February 18, 2008
Comment 47 of 78
once again the innocent workers who are at not fault for their injuries are going to get screwed over. In our case, my partner was able to return to work approximately 12 months ago, but not to his original position yet his workplace has only just managed to find him position (in january), which we were told he wasnt able to be placed in originally as the position is only for those with physical injuries not psychological injuries, in that time he has had his pay cut, made to feel like a criminal (even though there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident - everyone involved have continously pointed that out to us). We now understand why one of his doctors said the process for the claim is worse then the initial injury.
Posted by: mary of 10:03am February 18, 2008
Comment 46 of 78
It will only take one successful legal suit against an employer to pull that house of cards down. Clearly if compensation is to be cut, employers are going to be underinsured and therefore personally liable for the remained. Common law was abolished, but only with the presumption that compensation would always be adequate to properly care for the injured party. We know it has not done so in decades. A test case will certainly have many employers up in arms, as it should since their own representatives are pushing for it.
Posted by: Matthew G of 10:03am February 18, 2008
Comment 45 of 78
Hey Whatever, i think u r way off the mark. My old man is on workcover and will never work again due to being assaulted by a patient at the RAH. What appeared to be a collapsed disc into the spinal cord has now become a heart condition and intense pain for the majority of the day. Workcover have repeatedly tried to force him to work when they know full well he cant and have had doctors provide evidence but yet they continue to try and find ways to save money and cause the people they r meant to support more pain emotionally. Not all people on Workcover r bludgers Whatever.
Posted by: Pricey of Para Hills West 9:58am February 18, 2008
Comment 44 of 78
Having a look at the the cause (court) list each day and you will find there are more disputes in Consiliation and Arbitration than the other courts all put together. 98% are in the the workers favor. This tells me that this has never been a system it was intended for but an "insurance" environement. The current system was ok until the Administrators took control. Blame the workers and I assure you thre will be rolling strikes as this will effect not only current workers but most of you reading this comment.
Posted by: Jim Bennett of Croydon 9:49am February 18, 2008
Comment 43 of 78
it is little wonder that the WorkCover SA has a liability. The management and board have opted for high risk get rich investments and having 1.5 billion dollars invested in the high risk areas like sub-prime USA markets, only holds a gun to the heads of all South Australians when it fails. The fact is that WorkCover is a private company which has a charter to administer a SA govt Act. thus they have the benefits of a private company and public company. The board have said to the govt we need to make money for our shareholder and if you do not do as we have asked we will do nothing and yes that is the manipulation that WorkCover has done to all South Australain to the tune of 884 million (soon to be 1 billion dollars) . If it was a private company it would have failed and be placed in bankruptcy but as it has a hold on a public company these rules have been waived. The one main thing that is at the centre of this is that the WorkCover corp have not complied with the rules and regulation set by govt and now wants the govt to reward them for their failure. But the injured worker is the true victim as no matter what the govt or workcover do the injured are still injured suffering and being left to defend for themselves while the system that is there to assist them is more interested in making money and profits than to perform the job they were given the charter to administer. a fair go for all but the workcover system is in need of commonsense and less lawyers managers and corporate hopefuls.
Posted by: mark moore-mcquillan of 9:44am February 18, 2008
Comment 42 of 78
Excuse me Whatever of SA, do actually have any facts to back up your claim, or do you just enjoy coming to a public forum and shooting off your mouth,which makes you look like you a complete loser.
Posted by: Forum Troll of Right Here Right Now 9:38am February 18, 2008
Comment 41 of 78
Sack the board Rann, or are you in bed with them
Posted by: Steve of Roxby 9:36am February 18, 2008
Comment 40 of 78
Work cover needs reform, but as usual the worker gets blamed for the majority of the blow out in the costs, what should be look at and changed is the extremely high legal fees being charged on both sides The delay tactic of the work cover lawyers to drag the case out and the exorbitant fees charge by all the so called consultants who advise , how many injured people on work cover do you see driving an Mercedes or BMW car, yet nearly all the lawyers and consultants do.
Posted by: Warren Savage of 9:33am February 18, 2008
Comment 39 of 78
prevention is the key u morons!
Posted by: thomas the tank of tidmouth station 9:33am February 18, 2008
Comment 38 of 78
It's a bludgers paradise and the people who are genuine as per usual get the raw deal ! I wonder how much the labor mob sucks out of it ?
Posted by: Drecked of Nappy Valley 9:28am February 18, 2008
Comment 37 of 78
WorkCover Payouts story The Advertiser 18/02/2008 Outsourcing has failed - that¿s easy to understand, administration costs blown out by $75 million ¿ can¿t be difficult to see why, high turn over of claims managers ¿ that should be easy to figure out, ¿conspicuous deterioration in the corporation¿s financial performance and level of service to injured workers¿ ¿ was it greed or stupidity that made them chase poor or high risk investments with SA employers levies, ultimately leading to reduced services to injured workers. ¿Injured workers not returning to work soon enough¿ clearly all the injured workers in the State are liars and cheats and all the health care professionals that treat them are either liars and cheats or just plain gullible. Even though ¿claims have fallen by 13,000 between 1995 and 2007¿ the WorkCover system in this State can¿t make a go of it when other States can. It¿s clear, the answer to this problem is easy and simple ¿ cut injured workers benefits. I¿ve an idea to reduce WorkCover¿s financial problems, close it down and wind it up. Move injured workers to the Social Security system. That¿s where a lot end up after a considerable fight for their rights, along the way they lose their friends, family, self respect and physical and mental health. I¿m sorry, I forgot, we can¿t close WorkCover down, who is going to employ all the lawyers, court staff, Claims Agents, WorkCover bureaucrats, private detectives, job search consultants, psychologists, psychiatrists, GP¿s and physiotherapists. Added to the list on the edges are the luxury car dealers, restaurants, high end house renovators etc etc, and lets not forget a Minister will lose a portfolio. If reducing injured workers benefits is the only way that the people in charge can see to resolve the problems, then surely their state of mental health is in need of assessment, or is there too much money being made on the back of injured workers.
Posted by: Ian Trinne of Semaphore 9:27am February 18, 2008
Comment 36 of 78
The first thing to do is get rid of Workcover, it has to be cheaper for the bosses to pay sick workers then to pay the wages of the Workcover bosses and Government who have thier noses in the trough at Workcover. Why is the injured worker being penalised, the quicker we get rid of Rann and the Labor party the better, thought Labor was for the worker, guess I was wrong and where is the Unions in this, come on Unions, call a state strike on this.
Posted by: george of # 9:11am February 18, 2008
Comment 35 of 78
There are not enough rehabilitation opportunities within the State Public Service. I have work related injuries that prevent me from doing my regular position properly. I asked for rehabilitation, training and assistance to find a more suitable position within the state public service only to be told that these things dont exist. As per the article the reality is a high turnover of claims managers and "conspicuous deterioration" the level of service to injured workers.
Posted by: State Pubic Servant of Adelaide 9:01am February 18, 2008
Comment 34 of 78
And the "working families" will be the ones who suffer......
Posted by: TheMan of The Office 9:00am February 18, 2008
Comment 33 of 78
If, as the article suggests, Mr Rann sat on this all last year because of the federal election, shouldn't he be investigated for corruption? To avoid reducing WorkCover's losses for politcal purposes isdidgy isn't it? Or is that just what we expect from him.
Posted by: Warren Driver of Elizabeth 9:00am February 18, 2008
Comment 32 of 78
Will our business still have to pay 8.3% levy even though we never made a claim?
Posted by: Karen of Adelaide 9:00am February 18, 2008
Comment 31 of 78
I wonder if 'Tired of Political Correctness' has any appreciation of the physical and psychological pain people who suffer serious injuries at work endure. Narrow minded comments such as theirs do not help. Perhaps 'TOPC' would like to walk in another person's shoes for a day, imagine suffering a serious back injury, in constant chronic pain, reliant on the srongest pain killers available to get through day and observe their world crumbling around them - career, family, independence, self esteem, friends, being driven into depressed isolation.... A major issue facing injured workers is that of feeling like second class citizens, dependent upon income maintenance - it is a demeaning process. Labelling them as 'bludgers' will only serve to drive genuine claimants into hiding, making it all the more difficult for them to return to work for fear of being criticised and labelled in this manner. For injured workers to reconnect with communities and reintegrate into a work environment they require support, understanding and encouragement. Don't forget they also need money to live and support their families in the process, rent, mortgages, bills and food don't magically disappear just because of injury. It is a sad fact of life that there are people who will rort any system thay can gain benefit from, whether that be worker's compensation or otherwise - the key is in learning to recognise those who do so without placing an unfair disadvantage upon those who are genuine.
Posted by: Stephen Carter of 8:59am February 18, 2008
Comment 30 of 78
If you work for DECS do not have a workcover claim. I suffered a broken ankle after some on ground staff shifted planter boxes into a walkway. Firstly the intimidation to use sickleave, the pressure placed by the principal including being told it will reflect in my references for the next school. Also not being allowed to return to work on crutches "for OH&S reasons",The paperwork and the medical expenses are huge. The orthopedic surgeon said it was simply a case of placing the fee at a level that will compensate for 12 months to be paid and only a 70% chance of that. The biggest cost is the lack of honesty and the inefficiency.
Posted by: adam of greenwith 8:58am February 18, 2008
Comment 29 of 78
Whatever of SA, yes there are bludgers, but as someone who works in the system I can tell you a hell of alot of those cases are genuine, and they are treated like criminals by WorkCover and some of thei employers who seem to have little sympathy for work injuries.
Posted by: Tom Michaels of West Lakes 8:57am February 18, 2008
Comment 28 of 78
Having been on Workcover for a while, all I can say is don't pick on the innocent workers, why not attack the higher consult charges that the specialists in "The Boys Club" charge Workcover, the referals to their "mates" ........ it's the medical profession who are pillaging Workcover NOT the worker, curb these expenses and you won't have to add extra stress and suffering to the already injured workers. But we know it's easier to go after the weaker of the two, typical gutless government.
Posted by: Peter of She'll be right. 8:42am February 18, 2008
Comment 27 of 78
I think out of 100 cases, only 2 or 3 would be genuine - the bludgers have caused this.
Posted by: Whatever of SA 8:39am February 18, 2008
Comment 26 of 78
I think is time Workcover looked into employers who don't pay the correct levy. My working career (often as a temp) has seen many instances of this.
Posted by: frannie of Fullarton 8:36am February 18, 2008
Comment 25 of 78
The blame game. Why are injured workers losing their entitlements because South Australia has the only underperforming Workers Compensation scheme in the Country? If this was the private sector the razor gang would be cutting costs from the top down not the bottom up. I wonder how an injured worker and his family is supposed to survive for years on end while they wait for their wages disputes to be resolved quoting "ceasing maintenance until disputes were resolved with any arrears paid to the worker " clearly the injured workers will not have any financial resources to fight back if the board has its way. They will simply join the ranks of the oppressed majority. By the way has anyone looked at replacing the board and the management?
Posted by: Jeff Thompson of Adelaide 8:25am February 18, 2008
Comment 24 of 78
This is sad news for the genuine cases. It's about time the government started looking at some of the doctors who making the judgements on workcover cases. You know what they say "In for a penny in for a pound"
Posted by: Adelaide of Adelaide 8:11am February 18, 2008
Comment 23 of 78
Welcome to third world conditions.This is the price the average mug has to pay for being led up the garden path by government and trade unions.Remember the smarties who wanted to negotiate their own wages and conditions?What now?The average person in South Australia lives in fear of losing his job and more of falling out with the coterie of cronies who dominate each workplace.All this while our government fritters away taxpayers funds on huge defence contracts and tries their best with ongoing sporting events to keep the public entertained.
Posted by: Fred of Flinders Ranges 8:10am February 18, 2008
Comment 22 of 78
...or maybe the Compo bludgers could just go back to work?
Posted by: Tired of Political Correctness 7:42am February 18, 2008
Comment 21 of 78
So those who are genuinely injured at work are going to have to suffer. No payments after 2 years. Too bad about the family and the mortgage. I thought the Labor govt looked after the workers. It stinks. Prevent injuries happening in the first place and weed out the bludgers.
Posted by: john of unley 7:41am February 18, 2008
Comment 20 of 78
Andrew - an awful lot of sense in what you say mate. It's no use pulling people out of the water at the end of the river - we need to be saving them from falling in in the first place. But you know something - the philosophy in this article is the same as in the health service. Crazy stuff.
Posted by: stevie of brighton 7:39am February 18, 2008
Comment 19 of 78
well i wish id voted liberal now. I still think a better solution would be to cut the politicians pay packets. as long as the workers are looked after and are given every opportunity to get back to work faster than thats fair. but i couldnt think of anything worse that working your butt off and giving your time to a company only to get injured while making money for your bosses than to get nothing back when you are down. i think looking after the workers are the main priority.
Posted by: JODIE of 7:38am February 18, 2008
Comment 18 of 78
I remember the politician who tried to ride a bike in the park at lunch time and fell off of it. He got more than is paid out today for a truck driver killed on the job. The fat pensions we pay out for politicians is far to much, and we should reduce that as well as put a freeze on MP wage packets. As Andrew stated before me, put some effort into preventing injuries. The private police force used to spy on the injured is what the real expense is about for Workcover.
Posted by: Maxa of Elizabeth 7:34am February 18, 2008
Comment 17 of 78
The best solution would be working out who's scamming and who's not. There IS a difference between injuring yourself because of your working environment and injuring yourself at work doing something dumb. Or even injuring yourself the night before and making it work to have 'the accident'. In our industry we see people claiming compensation and clearly bragging about it (last week: the man who was on worker's compo for a bad back, yet single-handedly managed to lay a whole backyard of pavers IN HIS INVESTMENT PROPERTY!!) And who's paying for that? Rorting is the problem. Keep the system honest, pay genuinely injured people properly and weed out the scammers.
Posted by: Whinging Pom of Utopia 7:33am February 18, 2008
Comment 16 of 78
I agree with Andrew, unfortunately I don't think WorkCover's main focus is preventing injury, nor rehabilitating those who have been injured, if that was the case instead of focusing on worker's and employers, they should concentrate on the rehabilitation aspect of getting those who have been injured back to work - and given the fact that WorkCover plans to cut down on the rehabilitation providers providing rehabilitation to workers and giving the rehabilitation work to several larger rehabilitation companies which do not have good return to work rates, then it looks like WorkCover will continue to run itself into the ground. What needs to be done is a "flushing out" of those on the WorkCover board who have continually failed to fix this problem and continue to sit on longterm claims. We need new blood and fresh ideas, people who arent so negligent and unfocused on fixing this drastic problem. Compulsory OHS systems may help part of the problem, but there are also psychological problems to deal with such as workplace depression, and bullying which lead to psychological injuries.
Posted by: BJ of Grange 7:29am February 18, 2008
Comment 15 of 78
I think a better solution would be to put energy into preventing workplace injury in the first place. Have compulsory OHS systems in place with business registration, payroll tax cuts and other incentives for good safety practice. Have a workplace injury or death toll like the road toll. Cutting entitlements to injured workers isn't the answer, preventing people getting hurt is.
Posted by: Andrew of 6:56am February 18, 2008
Comment 14 of 78
Amazing! Once again hit the people that can least afford it. Employers are in no hurry to find permanent suitable work when you are willing to work. I can very much understand why people dont want to hurry back to work with an injury, but once again it looks like the ones doing the right thing will be hit again.
Posted by: concerned of 6:13am February 18, 2008
Comment 13 of 78
So the system was ruined by the Administrators, so the future injured workers lose their rights. Do the Administrators get charged for fraud or corruption for mal-practise?
Posted by: sam bass of Adelaide 5:58am February 18, 2008
Comment 12 of 78
So the system was ruined by the Administrators, so the future injured workers lose their rights. Do the Administrators get charged for corruption?
Posted by: sam bass of Adelaide 5:52am February 18, 2008
Comment 11 of 78
I have been on workcover for 4 years now and have found the whole process to be a nightmare. It's a big merry go round that is so hard to get off and I have spoken with many people that have been on or are on the system and they all say the same thing. I personally want to get off the system but I am finding it extremely difficult. I feel that the whole process does more harm than good in the way it is all handled and find that many people end up with physological and emotional disorders from the scheme. Talk to the people that are on Workcover and I'm sure that the debt could be reduced by just listening to what they have to say.
Posted by: Anon of 5:47am February 18, 2008
Comment 10 of 78
As a person who works in the industry I can tell you the major problems in all this is the corrupt WorkCover board some of whom have conflicts of interest in owning their own rehabilitation companies and profiteering off of injured workers meanwhile not achieving the return to work rates. Also there is the WorkCover claims agent Employers Mutual Limited which for 2 years now has failed dismissly in doing its job, employing inexperienced and neglectful claims managers, whose middle management also refers rehabilitation cases to the WorkCover board members (one of which is romanticly involved with a Labor backbencher as reported in The Advertiser) who's companies have record failures in return to work rates. Its quite evident the problem isnt with workers, its with WorkCover and its Claims Agent who have been negligent with the system and need to be fired and replaced with new people who really do care about getting injured workers back to work not just lining their pockets with more money and enhancing their own companies profits.
Posted by: Tom Micheals of West Lakes 5:23am February 18, 2008
Comment 9 of 78
Here we are again - Outsourcing - What is happening to The Public Service? is it so cluttered with itself that it cannot do the job? When Don Dunstan was Premier there were only 8500 public servants and 9 Ministers including himself. One would expect that privatisation and outsourcing especially would have reduced the numbers, which it should have, but there are 100,000 public servants with over 1,200 being paid over $100 grand a year.
Posted by: Robert Stewart of Lameroo 4:54am February 18, 2008
Comment 8 of 78
Instead of very exspensive ads, the money should be going to those that are injured at the workplace. Some of the people working at Work Cover should brush up on their people skills and stop trying to push people into doing jobs that the doctors have told their injured clients they will never be able to do again. In some cases their mental health is suffering due to their inability to fully recover that also needs to be taken into consideration.
Posted by: Merilyn Williams of S.A. 4:38am February 18, 2008
Comment 7 of 78
Why does this not surprise me,,,this is not about getting people back to work this is about savng money we are NOT stupid!
Posted by: Evie of Puerto Rico 2:17am February 18, 2008
Comment 6 of 78
Is'nt the SA government now spending a fortune taxpayers money promoting backwater Adelaide as the next boom city like Perth is, not much of a boom city if it can't even afford to look after its injured workers
Posted by: Ben boy of 1:55am February 18, 2008
Comment 5 of 78
l guess the money for those politican pay rises they seem to vote themselves every few months and the million buck super payouts they get when they retire at 45 has to come from somewhere.
Posted by: Jim of Victoria of 1:51am February 18, 2008
Comment 4 of 78
The WorkCover board had proposed cuts to workers' entitlements such as reducing weekly income maintenance payments, capping entitlements to medical expenses, limiting solicitors' capacity to charge injured workers<> And again the worker gets shafted, how about removing the adversial nature of it all. that alone would lower the liability by at least half. Limiting what the medical people can charge would also go a long way. Because as soon as workcover is mentioned their charges triple, so instead it costing $60 a visit its now $180 the delivery of service doesnt change but the cost does. That is what I experienced when I was on workcover. <ceasing maintenance until disputes were resolved with any arrears paid to the worker> How is the worker meant to be able to live and pay their bills, Centrelink wont come to the party, and most disputes take at least 10 to 12 weeks to be resolved.
Posted by: Mike of Mid North SA 1:23am February 18, 2008
Comment 3 of 78
I tore a calf muscle at work. An Intensive, continual physiotherapy plan was formulated but a succession of doctors advised that it woudn't speed healing so I didn't undergo it, thereby saving over $1000 in compensation medical bills. How many unnecessary noses are there in the compo trough? You get a strong feeling that it's seen as something of a lucrative gravy train.
Posted by: Sayer of Adelaide 12:52am February 18, 2008
Comment 2 of 78
(in a false seto voice),The car salesman gets results.
Posted by: A.Britten of Adelaide 11:58pm February 17, 2008
Comment 1 of 78
|
Posted by Reader at 3:00 PM, 20/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Mr Rann
First the bikies now workcover mate you must have really big ones or you are really stupid haven't you seen what happens to politicians overseas who over step the mark. its only a matter of time before it happens here..... Maybe you should pull your head out of your bum and have a reality check theres so many people on workcover hurting what are we all ripping off the system? employers can do what ever they want with no recourse i bet you if you rang my boss he would still be laughing how he got rid of me!
anyway keep up the good work you got my vote (not) |
Posted by Angry Trev at 12:50 AM, 21/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Minter Ellison
| I have noticed that an employee of Minter Ellison is on WorkCover and was listed on the cause list (21/02/08). Pretty good when WorkCover Agents are on and in the system. |
Posted by Stressed maybe? at 2:34 PM, 22/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Just to remind workcover so they do not forget
WorkCover has a duty to protect injured workers. Their safety and wellbeing should be of paramount importance.
If they looked after their staff so well how come they have such a high staff turnover?
Perhaps its time for a rethink of how everything is being managed?
|
Posted by John P. at 10:14 AM, 23/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Workcover correspondence
What a load of rubbish. when you take a case managers job you would full well know that if you mess with peoples lifes people will get upset you cant have everything your own way. what about the phone calls i get were there are 2 or 3 peolple from eml on speaker phone intimidating me or the phone calls were no one talks they just listen to see if i answer so they know if im home or not. or maybe my case manager holding me for ransom for my 58b telling me if i dont get myself cleared i wont get it!
I would be thankful people can get on here and vent there anger if you dont like some of these comments then maybe your in the wrong job!!!.
maybe some of us injured workers should make complaints to the police about you guys at least we have your contact details....... |
Posted by angry trev at 11:51 AM, 23/2/2008 |
Link |
|
They are all brainwashed
I have also been abused by the system, I was that abused I tried to have no contact with my case manager/rehabilitation but they just pressured me. Phone calls at night, Intimidating and threatening letters and just been made a fool off. The fear your livelyhood is in there hands all the time seems to think they have CONTROL.
To Ms Martin, your fellow employees are playing dice with peoples lives and their families. This is just another case of thinking YOU the good and we are the evil. Sorry to dissapoint you, get another job. |
Posted by Abused at 2:13 PM, 23/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Wayne Potter Case managers manual
Since WorkCover have declared they have been reading these comments, I can only assume Wayne Potter gets a read and I am still waiting if the "Wayne Potter Case managers manual" is FULLY alligned with the current act?
It states in the manual chapter one, that the manual does not replace the Act 1986 and referance must always be made to the Act.
Why is this manual used?
Does the number of cases at Riverside each day reflect the manual is not alligned?
Could your manual be causing such confusion as I have been stated by my case manager actions that is not in the Act?
Look forward to your reply.
|
Posted by you know who... at 4:23 PM, 23/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Workcover: How we can get it back to work.
The Advertiser. February 22, 2008.
RECENT calls for wide-ranging cuts to workers' entitlements to rein in Work-Cover's unfunded liability are self-serving and detract from the real issues underpinning the state's beleaguered workers' compensation scheme.
One of these is the outsourcing by WorkCover of its claims management responsibilities to the private sector. Changes to legislation in 1994, driven largely by ideological considerations, paved the way for WorkCover to outsource its core business.
At the time, many politicians and business leaders argued that an injection of private sector expertise was the solution to the problems. Outsourcing, we were told, would reduce WorkCover's administration costs, provide greater choice for employers, improve service delivery and lift the scheme's performance.
From 1995, claims management was farmed out to nine insurance companies, then five, then four and, since 2006, one claims agent.
So, has outsourcing delivered on the promises made by its advocates? No. The much-vaunted benefits of outsourcing have simply failed to materialise.
In 1994, before outsourcing, the cost of administering the WorkCover scheme was $49.7million. Outsourcing was supposed to save up to 15 per cent a year. This was never met. In fact, there were never any savings, even though the number of WorkCover claims fell from 39,500 in 1995 to 22,020 in 2007.
Instead, there was a blow-out in administration costs. By 2007, employers, after adjusting for inflation, had paid an extra $75 million in administration costs - in effect, an "outsourcing loading" of more than 10 per cent a year.
The promise of employer choice was also an illusion. Before 2006, on average each year less than 1 per cent of employers changed claims agents, and since then, of course, any semblance of employer choice has disappeared altogether.
Service to injured workers has been another area of concern. This has been especially so for those whose injuries make an early return to work unlikely or more difficult.
Claims agents have all too often regarded employers as the "customer" and workers as "claims". Consequently, any commitment to help injured workers return to work has tended to fluctuate between indifference and aggressive claims management.
An incredibly high turnover of claims managers, estimated at more than 20 per cent hasn't helped.
Finally, though not surprisingly, the been a conspicuous deterioration in WorkCover's financial performance.
Before outsourcing in 1995, the avera premium rate for employers was 2.84 per cent of payroll and the scheme had a funding ratio of 70.7 per cent. By 2007, the average premium increased to 3 per cent and the funding ratio
fallen to 64.7 per cent - even though workers' entitlements were greater then than now.
The obvious solution is that Workcover's (claims management functions should be brought back in-house. This option now to be seriously explored, especially as the
scheme's claims liability has increased by more than $300 million since 2006.
The outsourcing fiasco is by no means the only example of the scheme's poor management, and slashing entitlements to injured workers or raising premiums paid by employers is not the way forward.
What is required is an overhaul of the way in which WorkCover is managed.
Dr Kevin Purse is a Research Fellow with the Hawke Research Institute at the University of South Australia and a former WorkCover Board Member.
|
Posted by Reader at 4:29 PM, 23/2/2008 |
Link |
|
How to fix Workcover.
It seems that there have been a number of suggestions put forward on " how to fix WorkCover ".
Perhaps it might be suggested to the board members and Bruce Carter that he should concentrate on managing Workcover instead of becoming involved in individual workers claims( the scheme critical list).
The other more serious problem is there is no direction in any claims management.
How can a corporation managing injured workers claims be helping them one day and prosecuting them the next or trying to reduce their wages.
This in itself is causing a distrust of the system by injured workers who the system was originally legislated to help.
This problem has been caused by internal management and the board.
There is but one remedy.
Reform Workcover.
Sack the board and its management.
Out with the old and in with the new. A clean sweep is what is needed. |
Posted by D. Smith of Kensington at 6:26 PM, 23/2/2008 |
Link |
|
above comment
I have to totally agree with the above comment. The problem is a forward debt and mis-management by the Board, Ministers etc....
The question is will these people do the right thing by so many innocent injured workers and admit they were wrong and quit, and give the positions to people who can start not only to worry about debt, but the total operation.
I am unsure if the back to work advertisements are being aired but all it was showing was the ignorance of the people in charge. |
Posted by you know who... at 7:11 PM, 23/2/2008 |
Link |
|
manual
I have just read some of the case managers manual as its on the WorkCover web site. It states in part of occupational health and safety, where drinking alcohol or taking drugs is dangerous.
Most injured workers and I think I can be correct in stating an above term and concentrate on the "critical list" are on some pretty high dosage of medications, this is not a perfect world and unfortunately there are some terrible workplace accidents so back to work sooner could not be legally the right thing to do.
The reason the WorkCover Board are giving is that there is a high unfunded liability which is due to the long term claimants. The other reason is to bring us back in line with the other states, but the civil/common law never gets a mention which is allowable in their system.
Now I guess you can understand why I am confused.
|
Posted by confused at 7:29 PM, 23/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Back to work and rehab. The problem is with Workcover and EML.
I was in the WorkCover building last week and was standing waiting my turn at the counter.
A young lad (about 18) was asking how he could get help. His mother was also complaining.
The problems were
The young lad had been off work for 6 weeks.
He had not been paid.
His claim had not been accepted.
He had paid all of his savings in medical fees.
His medical specialists would no longer treat him unless he could pay and refused to see him as a public patient.
His case manager had told him that there was nothing they could do as it was his employers problem and they shoudl pay him and organise rehabilitation.
He lived in a country area. His mother had taken time off work that day to drive him into town to WorkCover to see if they could get some action. The young lad although he had a licence could clearly not drive because of his obviously injured and disabled arm.
He was keen to get some physiotherapy and treatment as his injury was severe and it was likely to be a long term claim.
The bells were ringing to me..Here is a typical case. No rehab, no help, no pay, and he was obviously not going to go back to work in a hurry with the assistance of WorkCover or his employer.
The helpful attendant at the counter was able to tell him that "he should not come without making an appointment and that it was unlikely he would get an appointment today and for him to telephone and make an appointment.(so his mother could obviously take another day off work-and only to be told when they attended at the appointment that obviously they had their times and dates mixed up and the appointment was yesterday and they would have to make another appointment with the earliest now in 10 days time.)
Having heard this all too familiar situation I was able to offer some assistance.
1) Lodge an application for expedited decision in the tribunal today.
2) go to SA unions and tell them your situation and ask for legal help.
3) go to St Vincent de pauls for some food and vouchers.
4) go to social security because he would have more guarantee of getting a payment from them than WorkCover within a month.
5) Not to worry about trying to work out how it is that he had been off work six weeks and WorkCover were still promoting all this stuff about return to work sooner and yet had done little to progress his case.
|
Posted by D. Bower at 9:18 PM, 23/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Memo: Minister Wright
| Minister Wright, can you please open your eyes on this WorkCover situation. I have been attending Injured worker forums (which you decline to attend) for the last 3-4 years and the stories were told of the mis-management way back then. Why have you not acted and just let WorkCover give you such a bad name? |
Posted by Who is accountable? at 9:09 AM, 24/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Forum
WorkCover Public Forum
March 8th
Enfield Community Centre
540 Regency Road
Enfield
9.30am -1pm
Invited speakers include
Minister Michael Wright
Treasurer Kevin Foley
Shadow Minister Dr Duncan McFetridge
Shadow Treasurer Martin Hamilton-Smith
Dr Kevin Purse
Mr Allan Clayton
SA Unions
|
Posted by me at 10:32 PM, 24/2/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover cuts backlash fears
Sunday Mail February 24, 2008
WorkCover cuts backlash fears
Little public support for move
BRAD CROUCH
Any move by the State Government to cut injured workers' entitlements faces a public backlash with an independent survey showing strong community backing to maintain support for injured workers.
A report into WorkCover by financial expert Alan Clayton is now before Cabinet and there is widespread speculation it will result in cutting benefits to reduce WorkCover's ballooning liabilities.
Liabilities now stand at $849 million and could reach $1 billion by the end of the year.
Last year, in a split decision, the WorkCover board recommended cutting benefits, which prompted the Clayton report.
Labor sources have indicated legislation to cut benefits may be hurried through Parliament to minimise political damage.
SA Unions has warned it may mount a political campaign against the Labor Government on the issue.
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles - who resigned from the WorkCover board this week in protest over the planned cuts
said the Government would alienate voters if it caved in to business pressure to slash the WorkCover scheme.
Ms Giles pointed to a survey as evidence two out of three South Australians did not sup-port cuts to workers' entitlements.
The McGregor Tan Household omnibus survey of 400 adults for February 2008, asked: "There has been public debate about WorkCover's performance and efficiency. Would you support cuts to injured workers' entitlements in order to reduce the cost of the scheme and the cost to employers?"
Overall, 65 per cent of respondents said they did not support cuts to entitlements.
Another 20 per cent said they didn't know and 15 per cent said they did support cuts to entitlements. The survey revealed the age group most strongly against cuts was 44 to 54 years, with more than three-quarters opposed to reducing worker entitlements.
McGregor Tan commented that "somewhat surprisingly those on higher incomes and professionals are also strongly against cuts to workers' entitlements."
Ms Giles said South Australians want a fair deal for injured workers.
"We are heartened by the public's strong support for injured workers," she said.
"There is widespread recognition that injured workers should not be further harmed by cuts to entitlements in order to satisfy the profit demands of the business lobby.
"Workers need support to rehabilitate and safely return to work and be productive again.
"It's apparent that people recognise slashing entitlements slows that process and ends up costing us more as a society."
Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith warned against any move to rush through legislation.
"I am waiting to see the report and we are expecting it this week but until we see it and the legislation we won't know what we are dealing with," he said.
"It should never have come to this point the scheme should have been properly managed.
"We need to see the report and the legislation, and consider them carefully before we make any decisions on whether to support it." |
Posted by Reader at 11:11 PM, 24/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Pigs at the trough
Having a farming background I think that there is a distinct similarity between WorkCover and feeding my pigs.
Once the pigs get a smell of food they stick their heads in the trough and will not move until all the foods gone.
Seems that many involved with WorkCover could be likened by many to be like my pigs at the trough.
They are all draining money out of employers and injured workers and obviously will not stop until every cent has been drained.
After hearing every excuse from the board and the management that things are going to get better nothing has changed, they are still plunging their snouts in to reform the system so they can drain more money.
Every employer pays dearly to finance the pay packets of the Board, WorkCover employees and EML and their lawyers and the doctors and the rehabbers and everyone else tied in with the system.
Even injured workers are getting leeched for money to pay their lawyers bills, they are never reimbursed fully for all of their losses and clearly its a lose, lose situation for employers and employees.
But the pigs at the trough are still smiling and grunting, cause the money is still coming in..
Reform WorkCover
It needs a new board and management. Not cuts to the rights of injured workers.
|
Posted by Farmer Joe at 2:01 PM, 25/2/2008 |
Link |
|
Victorian Workcover- Problems still exist.
Media releases
Workcover Fails Badly Injured - Legal Expert Tells Conference
Badly injured workers are no longer looked after under WorkCover, a former judge of the Accident Compensation Tribunal, Mr Paul Mulvany, said today.
He told a Law Institute conference today (EDITORS: 16 SEPTEMBER) that over the last 18 months it has become clear that new rules introduced in 1997 have effectively cut these accident victims out of the system.
The rules, based on out of date American doctors' guidelines, are used by WorkCover to decide how much is paid to compensate injuries that will affect workers for the rest of their lives.
"In fact this is a sleight of hand perpetrated on every working Victorian," said Mr Mulvany. "The simple fact is that people with the vast bulk of permanent injuries, that most Victorians would view as significant, receive no compensation whatsoever."
Mr Mulvany, a partner with Slater and Gordon, said workers with badly injured backs, for instance, are out of the running unless they are totally bedridden. "Anyone else has to make do or go on social security benefits."
"I understand that a number of medical Colleges, medical panellists and impairment assessment trainers are profoundly disturbed by the inequity and injustice of the scheme, " he said. "I believe that they have made representations to the Victorian WorkCover Authority, which have effectively fallen upon deaf ears.
"It is difficult to conceive that the WorkCover Authority was not aware of this effect when it proposed the scheme in 1997. If it was not, it constitutes monumental ineptitude. If it was aware of the effect it raises the very serious question as to why both it (a public authority) and its Minister repeatedly stated that the impairment scheme was an improvement for Victorian workers."
Addressing a litigation lawyers' conference in Melbourne, Mr Mulvany said that a person with a significant back injury and who had unsuccessful spinal surgery would be entitled to $5000, compared with at least $40,000 under the old scheme. And a worker with a knee injury with a 15 per cent loss of what is called industrial usefulness would not be entitled to any compensation. |
Posted by P. Andropolous at 7:57 AM, 26/2/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover's impairment
WorkCover's impairment
For many the NSW WorkCover system neither works nor covers. Michael Atkin reports.
Sitting in his lounge chair at 11am on a Monday morning isn’t a one off luxury for Abdullah Badawi.* He sits here most days. From inside his Quakers Hill home, in Sydney’s South West Abdullah hasn’t worked since being injured in 2003.
Abdullah was working at an outdoor table next to an electric grinder when another worker turned on the switch. The grinder instantly came alive and began to jerk violently towards him. He turned and ran.
The blade, which is designed to cut through sandstone, caught up with him and slashed down the back of his right leg, cutting it savagely at the calf. He fell to the | | | |